Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies or substitutions for the meeting.

There were none.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2020.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2020 were presented.

Resolved:

To approve as a correct record and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 17 June 2020.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

Cllr Gibson noted for clarity, in regard to application 19/09800/FUL, 12a Frome Road, that in 2016 prior to becoming a Wiltshire Councillor, she had submitted a planning application on behalf of a relation of the neighbour and objector for 12b. This did not in any way influence her decision in calling in the application.

To receive any announcements through the Chair.

There were no Chairman’s Announcements.

During the ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures to permit remote attendance of meetings. The procedure for the Strategic Planning Committee including public participation is attached.

Access the online meeting here

Public guidance for accessing meetings online is available here

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in support of or in

objection to an application on this agenda should submit it to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on 17 July 2020.

Those statements in accordance with the Constitution will be included in an

agenda supplement. Those statements must:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       State clearly whether the statement is in objection to or support of the application;

·       If read aloud, be readable in approximately 3 minutes.

Questions

To receive any questions from members of the public or members of the Council received in accordance with the constitution which excludes, in particular, questions on non-determined planning applications.

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such

questions in writing to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 15 July 2020 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on 17 July 2020. Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Committee members prior to themeeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

Questions have been received from Councillor Ernie Clark, which are attached together with responses.

Cllr Clark had submitted three questions (W-20-01, W-20-02, W-20-03) for which a response had been provided, as detailed in pages 19 – 21 of the agenda pack.

Supplementary questions

Cllr Clarke then read three supplementary questions, these were:

W-20-01 - What faith can local residents have in a planning process that allows conditions to be ignored, section 106 notices (planned for in perpetuity) to be varied at will, and where matters can be regularised effectively through variations?

Officer Response:

When there is a breach of a planning condition, applicants can legitimately apply to vary or remove a condition imposed as part of any grant of planning permission to seek the Council’s approval. As the decision maker, the LPA would be tasked with assessing the merits of each potential change to condition(s) or to vary the terms of any legal agreement. 

W-20-02 - Is Wiltshire Council so cash strapped that it cannot complete its responsibilities effectively? This gives builders a ‘carte blanche’ to behave however they want.

Officer Response:

Whether the Council takes direct enforcement action over any breach of planning control, is a discretionary option to be dutifully weighed up in terms of public expediency and reasonableness all of the options available at that time. The Government sets out a clear direction on how it expects LPAs to act, based on proportionality and reasonableness.

W-20-03 - When the government sets out the expectations through the NPPF and planning authorities are unable to carry it out, is recourse to the ombudsman the only avenue?

Officer Response:

No. If there are examples where it is thought the Council has not behaved appropriately, there is a two stage complaints process, with the initial complaint first stage complaint usually completed and responded to by the service. If that response is not accepted by the complainant, then there is the option to move to the second stage, where the complaint would be looked at by the Council’s corporate complaints team and in some cases, the legal team.

Question

Cllr Fuller had submitted one question, which was responded to and detailed on pages 3 - 4 of Supplement 1, which was published online dated 20 July 2020.

There was no supplementary question.

To receive details of completed and pending appeals and other updates as appropriate.

The Planning Appeals Update Report for 08/06/2020 to 10/07/2020 was received presented by Development Management Team Leader, Kenny Green.

Resolved:

To note the Planning Appeals and Update Report for the period of 08/06/2020 to 10/07/2020 as attached to the agenda.

To consider and determine the following planning applications.

Demolition of an existing dwelling and outbuilding and erection of 5 residential dwellings with alterations to the existing boundary wall to accommodate a widened vehicular access.

This item was deferred from the 17 June 2020 meeting of the Committee.

Public Participation, Statements read out by the DSO

Statement of objection by Anthony Phillips, on behalf of Dr and Mrs Tees

Statement of support by Tara Maizonnier (Agent)

The Planning Officer, Jemma Foster, introduced a report which recommended

granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the demolition of an existing dwelling and outbuilding and erection of 5 residential dwellings with alterations to the existing boundary wall to accommodate a widened vehicular access.

The application had been deferred in June to see if the applicant could achieve a visitor parking space and a turning head within the site. This had been achieved and was now part of the proposal.

Key issues highlighted included the Highways and the Biodiversity improvements now included in the proposals. The addition of a visitor parking space which had replaced the bin storage area and there being no previously reported collisions from the existing dwelling, which currently had no turning head. 

The allocated visitor parking was in an area already in use for parking, so there would be no additional impact on neighbouring properties.

Each dwelling would have one covered parking space and one other space at the front with the inclusion of a cycle storage area.

Materials were all considered to be appropriate, the site was in close proximity to the school, shops and train station.

The wellbeing of neighbouring trees was protected by the confirmation of a no dig area included in the plans, with root protection of these trees during building phase. There were no TPO’s for the trees on site, however the site was in a conservation area. An additional condition from the Tree Officer had been included in the construction method statement.

A Highways condition regarding deliveries had been agreed to by the agent.

There were no technical questions of the Officer for this application.

The Democratic Services Officer, Kieran Elliott, read out the public statements that had been submitted prior to the meeting, as detailed above. All statements were also available to view in the Agenda Supplement 1, published prior to the meeting.

Cllr Sarah Gibson, Division Member, spoke regarding the application noting that when it had come to committee in June, it had been deferred due to the  issues associated with access and parking.

Cllr Gibson expressed concern about the timing of bringing this application back to committee so soon after the June meeting and highlighted concerns about the proposed development, specifically in relation to the amount of amenity space being proposed for the number of houses, and pointed out that the only space being provided for recreation and amenity purposes on the site, that would not be used for bin and cycle storage and car parking, would be a small area at the end of the development towards to northern end of the site.

By incorporating a turning circle in the revised plans, the proposal would remove even more communal amenity space, and reasserted the view that the site was not large enough for 5 family dwellings, and argued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109a

Erection of 2 No. dwellings and associated landscaping and access works (amended design).

This item was deferred from the 17 June 2020 meeting of the Committee.

Public Participation, Statements read out by the DSO

Statement of objection by Nick Brindley

Statement of support by Chris Beaver (Agent)

Statement of support by Mr A Holdoway (Applicant)

Statement of objection by Limpley Stoke Parish Council

The senior planning Officer, Jemma Foster, introduced the report which recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for the erection of two dwellings and associated landscaping and access works.

It was noted that a committee member site visit had taken place earlier that day to comply with the June committee meeting deferment.

Key issues highlighted included, the small village status of Limpley Stoke, the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and its policy on residential infill development as well as green belt and impacts upon the nearby listed church.

The committee was advised that the application was considered compliant with the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and with the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan.  The application would deliver two additional dwellings within what was considered to be part of the established village (noting that the made Neighbourhood Plan specifically created a settlement boundary for the village and included the site within it, and that the application was in accordance with the infill policies).

The committee were informed of the proposed highway improvements including enhanced visibility and ecological safeguards. It was also confirmed that none of the Bath asparagus which was present on the site would be removed as part of the construction works.

The committee was advised that officers and the conservation consultees raised no objection in terms of the impact the proposed development would have upon the setting of the nearby listed church.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on seeking clarity on whether the proposal would be policy compliant infill development, mindful that the site owner had benefitted in recent years of having two dwellings approved under the infill policy.

In response, the committee was informed that neither the made Neighbourhood Plan nor the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy prescriptively prevented more than 2 dwellings being allowed as infill development, and that there was no policy prohibition for subdividing a plot further to create more infill opportunities.

The Democratic Services Officer, Kieran Elliott, then read out the public statements that had been submitted prior to the meeting, as detailed above. All statements were also available to view in the Agenda Supplement 1, published prior to the meeting.

The Division Member, Cllr Johnny Kidney, was unable to attend the meeting and provided his apologies prior to the meeting and prepared a statement which was read on his behalf by the Democratic Services officer. The main points were:

The committee was advised that this was the first occasion that Limpley Stoke Parish Council had asked Cllr Kidney to call in an application.

Members were advised that the site was very sensitive, being located within the Green Belt, the AONB and a Special Landscape Area, as well as being within the setting of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Variation of condition 3 of W/96/00587/FUL to modify the opening hours to 06:00-23:00 Monday to Saturday.

This item was deferred from the 17 June 2020 meeting of the Committee.

Public Participation, Statements read out by the DSO

Statement of support by Brad Wiseman (Agent)

The Senior Planning Officer, David Cox, introduced the report which recommended granting the variation to condition 3 imposed on W/96/00587/FUL to modify the opening hours to 06:00-23:00 Monday to Saturday.

The application had been deferred at the June committee meeting to enable officers to secure additional information on traffic, litter and noise generation.

The committee was advised that the application before them should solely consider the planning merits of the proposed extension of the opening hours as set out in the report.

The committee was informed that following the publication of the committee agenda, a late supportive submission had been received by officers from North Bradley Parish Council and their supportive comments, specifically in relation to litter management were read out by the case officer.

The case officer summarised the updated comments from the public protection officer in relation to noise and litter as well as the additional comments provided by the local highway authority – both of whom raised no objections.

Key issues highlighted included the site was located within a mixed-use area, and part of a well-established retail park accessed off one of the main arterial routes into and out of the town.  Litter was not considered to be problem as far as the public protection team were concerned who reported no recent received nuisance or litter-based complaints from the public relative the site and litter management by McDonalds, which appeared to reinforce the supportive comments received from North Bradley Parish Council.

The Committee was informed that recently reported and documented background noise levels along Bradley Road at 06:00 had been reviewed by the public protection team and these were found to be quite high due to existing vehicular noise. With this baseline situation, the committee were advised that noise relating to vehicles using the drive thru would not be substantively audible and would not be defensible grounds to refuse planning permission.

The committee was also advised that the proposal would not lead to highway conflicts or substantive harm and by opening 90 minutes earlier in the morning, there would only be a limited extra number of people accessing the premises and site, some of whom may arrive by cycle or on foot.

There were no technical questions to the officer from members.

The Democratic Services Officer, Kieran Elliott, then read out the public statements that had been submitted prior to the meeting, as detailed above. All statements were also available to view in the Agenda Supplement 1, published prior to the meeting.

Cllr Andrew Bryant, as Division Member, spoke regarding the application with the main points focusing on the proposed variation to the opening hours from 07:30 to 06:00 and referenced the planning application site history for the premises and the nearby Costa and KFC establishments.

Cllr Bryant informed the committee that McDonalds was originally granted permission to operate between the hours of 07:30 – 23:00 in 1996 and had an application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

Alterations and extensions to existing office building including erection of mansard storey on north wing; change of use of central building and southern wing from B1 offices to form 2 dwellings (C3).

The Chairman, Cllr Newbury left the meeting at this stage and Cllr Jonathon Seed took the Chair.

Public Participation, Statements read out by the DSO

Statement of objection by Klas Hyllen (Neighbourhood Group)

Statement of support by Mel Clinton (Agent)

Statement of support by Robert Moore (Custodian)

Statement of support by Colin Scragg (Marketing Agent)

Statement of objection by Bradford on Avon Town Council

The senior planning officer, Steven Sims, introduced the report which recommended granting planning permission and listed building consent, subject to conditions, for alterations and extensions to existing office building including erection of mansard storey on north wing; change of use of central building and southern wing from B1 offices to form 2 dwellings (C3).

It was noted that two late representations had been received but these had raised no new substantive issues from one neighbouring resident and the Town Council, although members were advised that during the case officers presentation mention would be made to the key issues being highlighted by those objecting to the application.

The committee was informed that the site was located within central Bradford on Avon (BoA) and within the BoA conservation area. Manvers House was a Grade II listed building with a number of other listed buildings nearby. The committee was advised that the subject property was located in a mixed-use area with commercial and residential development and the site context was detailed in the officer’s report and the committee presentation slides.

Members heard that the Manvers House application site comprised of three essential elements: the main central 3 storey building with elements dating back to the 17^th Century.  A 19^th century addition built off the south east elevation and a two-storey modern 20^th century office wing, which was built off the north west elevation of the original Manvers House property.

The main elements of the proposal were to:

·       Convert of the main building from a vacant office to a 6-bedroom dwelling (with no external alterations)

·       To alter and convert the south wing from vacant offices to a 3-bedroom dwelling (with external and internal alterations); and

·       To construct a new mansard roof to the north wing of approximately 3m in height to provide an additional storey of office space.

The committee heard the case officer report that in response to a local concern raised about the materials to be used for the mansard roof, condition 3 as detailed in the report would require and secure appropriate materials – with the case officers publicly outlining the expectation that the materials would need to be of high quality to reflect and respect the protective status of the subject building and site location.

The proposed uses of the subject building were explained verbally along with direct references being made to detailed parts of the committee report.

The committee was advised that through the use of planning conditions, the Council could secure mitigation and safeguards to ensure that the development would not result in substantively harming neighbouring amenities through securing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Proposed new dwelling.

No Public Statements were received

The senior planning officer, Matthew Perks, introduced the report which recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, for a proposed new dwelling.

Key issues highlighted included: the scale of development, the visual impact upon the surrounding area, the relationship to adjoining properties, design – bulk, height, general appearance, environmental/highway impacts, and the car parking provision.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer which focused on the relationship of the site to neighbouring dwellings, the established building line for the street site and the proposed vehicular access and parking close to the road junction.

No statements had been received from the public.

Cllr Edward Kirk, as Division Member, spoke regarding the application a focused his comments on arguing that the proposal constituted as site overcrowding and the proposed design would not be in-keeping with the area.

Cllr Kirk proposed refusal grounds siting CP57 part 3 - which was seconded by Cllr Clark.

During the debate the committee considered the character of the area, the principle of accommodating a dwelling on the plot, the design of the proposed dwelling and the local context which included a bungalow located opposite that has a side extension of its own.

Note: Cllr Carbin left the meeting at 19:00 and did not take part in the vote.

Following the debate, the motion of refusal against officer recommendation was voted on citing a conflict with Wiltshire Core Strategy Core Policy 57 and the NPPF.

Resolved

That application 20/03166/FUL be refused against Officer recommendation for the following reason(s):

The development would be seen as a prominent and cramped form of development which would not be in keeping with the established character of the area due to its form and siting and would therefore undermine the prevailing sense of place and local distinctiveness, and fail to demonstrate the high quality of design and respect for the local context as required by Core Policy 57 of the adopted Wiltshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Following the cessation of the published committee business, the committee thanked and paid tribute to Matthew Perks in recognition of his service through the years and assistance given to many of the Cllrs as it was appreciated that the 22 July meeting would he has last before retiring.

Any other items of business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, should be taken as a matter of urgency.